Social Security is a UBI based on age (pointing out, mildly). A small UBI doesn’t solve problems at scale, but its emotional value is probably more powerful than we realize and could in itself drive confidence and economic growth. I would certainly rather put money in a UBI than a lot of other places where government funding is going.
When I was preparing this piece, I considered including Social Security as an example, but in the end, I cut it out.
I was curious about the idea that Social Security is a kind of proto-UBI, which may have made it a useful case study. But it isn't, and the reasons why not illuminate exactly what UBI's advocates are actually proposing.
Social Security is a contributory social insurance program: you pay dedicated payroll taxes across a working life and receive defined benefits in retirement, disability, or survivorship. It is not "universal" in any way. Benefits vary with your earnings history. You must have worked for ten years in covered employment to qualify at all. There is no Social Security check for a 30-year-old who has never worked.
UBI, by definition, requires none of this — no work, no contribution, no particular age or circumstance. The unconditionality is the entire philosophical point. Unconditionality is what makes a UBI "universal". And this is the primary moral argument made for UBI by Van Parijs, the economist who was the strongest advocate for UBI. And in my view, unconditionality is the source of the economic flaw that undermines UBI.
Social Security works — to the extent it works — precisely because it preserved the contributory principle. That principle is what gives it actuarial discipline and political legitimacy simultaneously. Remove it, as UBI does, and you have neither.
Separately, the history of Social Security is the strongest available evidence for the ratchet argument that I introduced at the end of the article. Social Security began in 1935 covering a narrow slice of the workforce, then expanded over nine decades into the most politically untouchable program in American government. In this aspect, Social Security is proof of how entitlements grow, not proof that UBI would be manageable.
Wow. 100% agree. Awesome arguments, beautifully written.
Thank you for reading, and thanks for the kind words.
Social Security is a UBI based on age (pointing out, mildly). A small UBI doesn’t solve problems at scale, but its emotional value is probably more powerful than we realize and could in itself drive confidence and economic growth. I would certainly rather put money in a UBI than a lot of other places where government funding is going.
When I was preparing this piece, I considered including Social Security as an example, but in the end, I cut it out.
I was curious about the idea that Social Security is a kind of proto-UBI, which may have made it a useful case study. But it isn't, and the reasons why not illuminate exactly what UBI's advocates are actually proposing.
Social Security is a contributory social insurance program: you pay dedicated payroll taxes across a working life and receive defined benefits in retirement, disability, or survivorship. It is not "universal" in any way. Benefits vary with your earnings history. You must have worked for ten years in covered employment to qualify at all. There is no Social Security check for a 30-year-old who has never worked.
UBI, by definition, requires none of this — no work, no contribution, no particular age or circumstance. The unconditionality is the entire philosophical point. Unconditionality is what makes a UBI "universal". And this is the primary moral argument made for UBI by Van Parijs, the economist who was the strongest advocate for UBI. And in my view, unconditionality is the source of the economic flaw that undermines UBI.
Social Security works — to the extent it works — precisely because it preserved the contributory principle. That principle is what gives it actuarial discipline and political legitimacy simultaneously. Remove it, as UBI does, and you have neither.
Separately, the history of Social Security is the strongest available evidence for the ratchet argument that I introduced at the end of the article. Social Security began in 1935 covering a narrow slice of the workforce, then expanded over nine decades into the most politically untouchable program in American government. In this aspect, Social Security is proof of how entitlements grow, not proof that UBI would be manageable.